How common were actual two-handed swords in combat, as opposed to just normal swords or a sword + shield?
>>65389837What century and what continent?
As with basically all of these things, it depends heavily on where and when. It also depends a lot on what exactly we consider a two handed sword, as it's quite the sliding scale from single handed sword, via single handed sword where you can sorta squeeze in a second hand, to something you may use in one hand on horseback or two on foot, to two handers you might occasionally sue with one hand, and then the "absolute" twohanders.Putting all of that together, well, if we look to medieval Europe we see some sword get grips long enough for two hands in, hm, the 12th century? We then have some amount of "could be sued in one or two hands" in the following centuries, with the "two handed only" swords probably being largely a thing from the very end and the Renaissance. They're never all that common, while how often exactly people would go with two hands on their word (without a shield or with it slung over their shoulder) when mounted and on foot respectively doesn't seem to be very well known.If we take Japan on the other hand then we have a lot of either-one-or-two-hand swords from, hm, 7th or 8th century perhaps and onwards. The full twohanders seem to mostly show up in the 14th century, though once again it's hard to say how common exactly they were even at their peak.China? Popularity seems to wax and wane a few times throughout history (with two handed swords, or at leats two-hand-compatible, popping up all the way back in the bronze age), and here the issue is further complicated by a number of long-blade-short-haft polerams further complicating the matter of what we consider a two handed sword.
>>65389837It was nothing more than a trend that was quickly replaced with firearms.
>>65389872This has to be a parade sword. Even the montantes weren't longer than 6 feet.
>>65389887Possibly. Or, given how narrow it is, it's perhaps to be thought of as more of a funny looking spear than a sword. (Not that it's necessarily a good weapon even if that's the case, we don't see a bunch like it for some reason). I strongly suspect it's based on an orignal sword shown in Dolinek's "Encyclopedia of European Historical Weapons", but I can’t recall what he wrote about it beyond it being from Milan, 1584.
>>65389837Not very. "Normal swords" were always the majority and kept being used from early history throughout the years far into the age of firearms.Proper dedicated two-handed swords, i.e. great swords were a limited 2-3 century thing, generally ending in the 17th century. Based on surviving manuals and historical documents on their use, they were generally meant for fighting against less armored, potentially multiple opponents, e.g. being used in a civilian setting, for bodyguard work etc. or by specialists seeking to break apart formations like ranks of pike, where being able to swing a big sword around could simultaneously threaten and destabilize many men at once.This video has some good show on the kind of action the swords were good for. A big fuck-off sword being swung all around is going to keep most less armored assailants at bay, no matter what.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxHaNRO705k
>>65389837Fairly rare, you needed really good metallurgy to get a good, two handed sword. Hand-and-a-half swords were more common by far and one-handers were practically standard for professional fighting men. When they did get used they tended to be area denial. Someone starts swinging a BFS 9000 and everybody stands well back. As a result, you saw a lot of longswords being used as screening forces and bodyguards. Basically a delaying tactic so that you can get troops into position or VIPs to safety.
>>65389837Not very, because of cost. You'll always have a lot more shorter swords.
Swords were uncommon in general
>>65390030Ayyy that's Ton. Fun guy.
>>65389837There's evidence that pretty bigass longswords were carried as sidearms for a while, but not a very long while.
>>65390030While you're correct about greatswords, longsword in two hands was prevalent for much longer.
>>65389837The flamberge was common for German bodyguards in the Renaissance until gunpowder became common; they messed up the typical pike formation. The people who used them were usually paid as if they were the best. The Scots used the claymore more at the start of 15th century, but the broadsword took over around the 17th century.
>>65389837Generally speaking in times & places where they were most common they were still relatively rare.
I'm sick of this retarded pendulum shit. People started acknowledging that swords were overrepresented in fiction and depictions of history and now all of a sudden people are claiming that they were barely ever used. Fuck you. Two handed swords were very common amongst armored knights, usually as a backup for something like a pollaxe or a lance if they were on horseback. They were considered a great backup tool for knight v knight combat since you could halfsword them and aim precision shots at the gaps in your opponents armor. They were also great for fighting unarmed/low armored dudes because your added protection allowed you to just rush them, and a large killing area on your weapon is good for that. I will say that actual greatswords like the ones german mercenaries carried were pretty rare though.
I just think it's neat.
>>65392847>The flamberge was common
>>65392941>pretending to be illiterate
>>65392946>The only reason people could think I'm wrong is if they don't understand what I wroteFlamberges were not common among anyone, even moneyfags, and despite what Dark Souls taught you the term is not synonymous with bigass swords. They also weren't particularly suited for dealing with pikes, that's an ancient myth that I can't believe people are still spouting.
>>65392971It's ok anon you don't have to pretend that hard.
>>65389837Swords that required two hands?Not very.Swords that were best used in two hands, but could be used in one?Pretty common among professional warriors in Europe once invented.
>>65389837Shield use went out of fashion around the time plate armor was introduced.
>>65392974Yeah OK dude, continue to talk about German bodyguards dealing with pikes. Post a picture of the 17th century broadswords you had in mind when you made that earlier post.
>>65393011oh damn you're not pretending to be illiterate, you just can't read
>>65393013Post a picture of the 17th century broadswords you had in mind when you made that earlier post.
>>65393016I didn't make that post. I just can read.Yes, flamberges were fairly common for bodyguards. Museums are full of them. But, you want to whine that they weren't common because not everyone had them; of course not, not everyone paid to have an armed bodyguard. It's not worth redditing out over. Restrain yourself.>b-but I really want to argue more about other things!Ok>Post a picture of the 17th century broadswords you had in mind when you made that earlier post.something like this. Though this particular one is English, they were common throughout Britain. My understanding is they became associated with Scotland in the 18th century as the English largely began to move on to other swords, while the Scots stuck with the broadsword, which now leads to people thinking it was some uniquely Scottish thing.
>>65391559>When they did get used they tended to be area denial.This is bullshit. As I understand it, they were used closer to a spear. Thrust over shoulders of your first line.
>>65393050>I didn't make that post.Classic abdication of responsibility but OK, I'll roll with it.>you want to whine that they weren't common because not everyone had themI specifically stated that "Flamberges were not common among anyone, even moneyfags." Even the cheap version where you paid for filework and reprofiling on an already forged sword was a huge flex. I fully understand that a weird carveout was made, I was saying that even with that in mind the statement>The flamberge was commonis not accurate. Not only are weapons like this highly situational but you had to have so much money for this situational weapon.
>>65393114>Classic abdication of responsibility but OK, I'll roll with it.pic rel>>The flamberge was common >is not accurate.Good thing that's not what he said.>weird carveoutYou mean "the words he said" but you want to redditsperg all over the place and show your midwit grade intelligence, so go off king. You want to argue about one thing, whether the post said it or not, and by God you're gonna do it.There are loads of the things surviving to present in Europe. Hell, I think I've personally seen more 'zweihanders' with flamberge blades than straight ones. It was common enough the word itself was used as a generic, albeit poetic, word for swords of all kinds in literature.
>>65393136>pic relNever proves anything. I already said I'd roll with it.>Good thing that's not what he said.>You mean "the words he said"I'll make this as plain as I can: I only quoted what I quoted because it was so incredibly wrong that the rest of the sentence didn't matter. There isn't a context where>The flamberge was common is an accurate statement unless you go to some ridiculous extreme truism like "everyone who owned a flamberge had a flamberge." And that's before getting to the bit about pikes, the guy's mashing up like half a dozen meme opinions in his post.>There are loads of the things surviving to present in Europe.I don't think that says as much as you think it does. I'll draw a parallel to flails here. For a long time it became a meme that flails weren't a thing, or that if they were then they were just repurposed farm tools. However museums have flails that were clearly purpose built weapons. This shows us that they exist, their commonality is an entirely different conversation. I could say the same about armor, there are tons of suits of bespoke plate suits in museums but they weren't common.Large swords like rapiers, longswords and greatswords stretched metallurgy and craftsmanship to their limits and you'd be paying far out the ass for a basic version. The idea that a premium version of these already expensive weapons would be common, even among the moneyed people who could afford these weapons, is flawed from inception.
>>65393219>I'll make this as plain as I can:I'll fix what you really mean: You want so desperately to argue about a point that wasn't made, that you'll pretend that's what was said and spend actual hours complaining about it. You don't care what anon said, you just want to go "UH AKSHUALLY!" and loredump whatever youtube video you watched last.
>>65393256>You want so desperately to argue about a point that wasn't madeYou're going on as if I didn't directly quote the guy and it's weird to me that you're white knighting someone who's plain wrong but if it'll put out the fire in your ass then OK:>The flamberge was common for German bodyguards in the Renaissance until gunpowder became common; they messed up the typical pike formation.This is bad information. The whole sentence is bad information. I have directly quoted the whole sentence and it is all bad information.
>>65389837I suppose it depends if you consider a bayonet to be a two-handed sword
>>65393272>This is bad information. The whole sentence is bad information. I have directly quoted the whole sentence and it is all bad information.That's honestly the best part. You want to redditsperg by cherrypicking part of the comment, dropping context that was absolutely necessary so you can whine better, when you could have redditsperged at the whole thing and been correct.Instead, because you're a fucking retard, you quadrupled down on whining about a point that wasn't made.>monkeys are commonly seen in North Americais false>monkeys are commonly seen in North America at zoosis true>monkeys are commonly seen in North America at zoos, because black people get free tickets.is a mixed bag.Cutting out an essential part of the sentence just makes you look illiterate, not more correct. You know I'm right, so why keep whining?
>>65389837Ubiquitous tier The longsword after the poleaxe would be a man at arms best weapon>Effective against the lightly armored >Effective against fully armored halfsworded more than any other belt carryable weapon
>>65393289You are legitimately mentally ill.
>>65393338We're arguing about swords on 4chan. A healthy mental state wasn't an option either of us picked at character creation, get real.
>>65393289Not the anon you're arguing with, but when and where do you think flame-bladed swords were common?
>>65392879Whay is going on with those gauntlets? I've seen rondels on the backs of palms, but those appear to be on the pinkie side and they must not be perfectly round for the blades to pass through the fist.
>>65393356It's a specific tournament/duel sword with a rondel on the blade and spiked pommel. A handful of extant examples of things like it exist but it's safe to say they were very specific and uncommon.
>>65393356I think it's some sort of wacky German dueling sword. They used all sorts of goofy shit in their judicial duels, like the ever-popular Battle Cello.
>>65393349You're missing the "who" which is very important and completely changes the statement.>whereHoly Roman Empire>when16th century>whoprofessional bodyguards
>>65393341>We're arguing about swords on 4chan.You mean "redditsperging" you disingenuous faggot. If you want to not be a jackass then the time to start is at the beginning. I'm done with this nonsense, I'm going to talk to other people who actually want to talk about swords.
>>65393373Okay, and what's your evidence that flame-bladed swords were common amongst 16th century HRE bodyguards?
>>65393379
>>65393385Zweihanders very frequently have these blades, and that was one of their primary purposes. It still lives on to this day in that role, in fact.
>>65393356He could be holding a backup dagger in his hand while holding his main weapon at the same time, but normally you'd be doing that with your back hand
>>65392971The only reason they weren't common is because of the skill and materials necessary for craftsmanship. The curve absolutely helps to bind and control.>>65393114That's a falchion. This is a flamberge. The point and range are necessary.
>>65393361>>65393364Neat. The thought it was a part of or even slid onto the blade did briefly cross my mind, but I assumed a gaunlet made more sense, price and use wise.Makes sense in a ceremonial duel only context, I guess.
>>65393665There were all sorts of crazy things that people did for ceremonial combat. Rock in a sock was a viable category of weapon in what could be called early divorce hearings.
>>65393681That's a shoop
>>65389837The Galloglass used almost exclusively two-handed melee weapons.
>>65394035Gee Bill! How come your mom lets you wield -Two- swords?
>>65392879>I will say that actual greatswords like the ones german mercenaries carried were pretty rare though.Relative to the hundreds of musketeers and pikemen, maybe. Tthey still had dozens of them covering the gaps between units, and flanks/corners of formations.
>>65393272>The flamberge was commonIt's over represented in museums. Generally they survived through non use.The pike thing- this was noted some years after initial invention as a possible advantage then quickly forgotten as even if it were true, this is not the weapon to send against pikemen en masse. Not only does it *somewhat* parry or redirect pike attacks (it's not great and it has to be razor sharp), you've now placed yourself in engagement outside your own range and vulnerable to sidearm weapons while you're busy.dumb
>>65393379HOW DID THIS ALSO GET TO BE FUCKING ILLEGAL IN NY!?! FUCK!Was there a chain-sword murder summer once or something? I was here, I didn't notice one.
>>65393379Can you link to this product? If it's illegal in CA, MA or NY, I want it.
>>65394166Not really. Historical records suggest that the vast majority of men with that duty would have halberds.
>>65393066They could be but two-handers were usually used by doppelsoldners who were out on the flanks of a pike square.
>>65389837As far as a general statement would go, this >>65392983 is your best answer. But it depends on what you define as a "two-handed sword" as there were numerous examples of such weapons all over history. Your OP pic best resembles a renaissance era style of sword that went by a multitude of (modern) names (Renaissance-Bidenhänder, Bidenhänder, Zweihänder, Schlachtschwert - and those are just the german ones) and those were usually reserved for specialist roles. The one I know best was that of the colour guard during a field battle, as it laid out in this 1530s woodcut here: >With the battle sword (Schlachtschwert) we hit them>If breached/defeated is our formation>And the enemy want to shame us>Breaking in and wanting to take the colours>Then we attack them with glee>We will protect the colours fine>Because our body and life is worth>double the pay, we carry>the Battlesword>>65389885This as well. By the beginning of the 17th century the usage of those weapons on the battlefield drastically decreased. >>65392847>The people who used them were usually paid as if they were the best. No. The term Doppelsöldner (double [pay] soldier) refers to them getting the double pay of a common soldier. And this double pay was fixed at 8 guilders per month. This was a huge problem as the fixed wages could not keep up with inflation. Back to the "they were paid as if they were the best" part - other Doppelsöldner included musicians, guides, translator, cooks, clerks and bailiffs; it was a pay grade for certain specialists. (Non-commissioned) officers, technical and judicial specialists recieved far higher wages. Lastly a "fighting" Doppelsölnder was not limited to those fighting with a battlesword but could also encompass pikemen, halberdiers & gunners.>>65392879>I'm sick of this retarded pendulum shit.Yeah this. People carried as much as they wanted, could, needed and could afford. There was no "fixed inventory slots" for equipment.
And regarding the autistic debate of Flamberge vs. Non-Flamberge style blades: I think I have seen an equal number of them in museums (both their digital collections and while visiting them). This >>65394175 is also an important point as whatever a museums exhibits is only a small part of their inventory. Thus they use the artifacts with the largest "wow"-factor. I'm not really sure about the existence of Flamberg style blades in paintings of the 16th and 17th century. Most paintings or drawings I know that feature battlesword depict straight bladed ones.
Here more Flamberge. The last two pics are from the museum of the Imperial Castle in Nürnberg, Germany.
>>65389837In japan every samurai would have had a katana or tachi. if you’re talking about greatswords specifically they also had odachi but these weren’t very common especially in the sengoku jidai.
>>65393272>dont talk to me or my wench's son ever again.
